Bill Funk <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
> worse than
> >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
> is being
> >>>> >dramatically overstated.
I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
cities as the ocean rises.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Ed
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
> >>>> But there are a lot of questions about that:
> >>>>
> >>>> *Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
> >>>> scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
> >>>> it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
> >>>> at all.
> >>>
> >>>Are you saying that the existing models don't fit the past climate
> >>>spikes? At what point do they miss? Or are you saying that because
> >>>there was warming in the past without human interaction, the fit of
> >>>the model explaining current warming as tied to current human CO2
> >>>release can't be correct? Similar to the argument that, since forest
> >>>fires have been going on since the dawn of forests, current forest
> >>>fires can't possibly be ignited by human actions?
> >>
> >>I am being rather clear in saying that "models" can model anything
> >>that the programmers want them to model.
And I am saying that isn't right; I think it is closer to say that
'models' can pull the wool over the eyes of anyone who lacks an
analytical mindset, particularly if they have a fixed bias. But as
they say, enquiring minds want to know; and that greatly reduces the
number and type of models they find acceptable, even if the results
aren't what they hoped they'd be. Most working scientists have at some
time in their career had to sadly abandon at least one pet hypothesis
because it just didn't fit the data well enough; if they can't face
reality to that extent, they don't get very far in the science biz.
> >>>
> >>>> *How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
> >>>> Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
> >>>> slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
> >>>> absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
> >>>> Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
> >>>
> >>>Well, we do know that we are entering a new ice age; these cycles are
> >>>pretty much worked out, and in 4-5 thousand years we are going to be
> >>>pretty damn chilly. But most people are more interested in where we
> >>>will be for the next few decades. And right now it looks like
> >>>continuing to perpetually increase the amount of solar energy trapped
> >>>by the atmosphere is probably a worse idea than not doing so.
> >>
> >>Yet, the actual *causes* for this warming are not known.
> >>They are *assumed* to be caused by C02 released by us, but we don't
> >>*know* that.
> >
> >They're as known as anything in science can be where you can't do controlled
> >experiments. That CO2 is causing the current warming is as known as, say,
> >CFCs destroy the ozone layer, or evolution explains the current diversity, or
> >the big bang is how the universe began.
>
> IOW, I'm right, they aren't known.
Well from that point of view, nothing in science is known. We don't
know that there was a big bang. We don't know that inhaling smoke
causes cancer. We don't know that microorganisms cause disease. We
don't know that the sun is what makes the earth warm in the daytime.
We don't know that gravity will still function next Wednesday. We
don't know that fossils are actual evidence of organisms that lived
long ago, and not just interesting rock formations. But we have good
evidence for all of the above. If you are asking to 'know' that
manmade CO2 causes global warming, of course you're going to be able
to say 'Nope, that's not it yet'.
> >
> >>We don't know for sure what causes climatic shifts on a grand scale.
> >>We can see what happened, but we can't say why they happened.
> >>So, we are being told that we must creat economic upheaval, and
> >>drastically change our livings, because we are somehow "bad".
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
> >>>> to hear. That's reality.
> >>>
> >>>Not hardly. Show me a model showing that global warming is related to
> >>>astrology, then you can say this. In any event, science consists of
> >>>'dueling models'; you narrow it down to a few that explain the current
> >>>data better than the rest, then narrow it down further by seeing which
> >>>ones predict new data better.
> >>
> >>I can make one.
> >>You are asking me to do something you can't do yourself, when I made
> >>no claim that I can do that.
> >>Sorry, but that's a bogus defence of the claim that we are causing
> >>global warming.
> >>>
> >>>> It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
> >>>> global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
> >>>> the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
> >>>> want.
> >>>
> >>>Similarly, it's stupid to take a little step away from the bed in the
> >>>morning, when what I really need to do is get to my job 20 miles away.
> >>
> >>???
> >>Where did this come from?
> >>Kyoto doesn't do more than pretend that it will reduce C02. Instead,
> >>it only shifts the production of C02 from some countries to others.
> >
> >It does not.
>
> It does. Read it.
> It allows developing countries to skate, with the very predictable
> results that manufacturing will move there.
You'd prefer we limit the CO2 emissions from countries that don't have
much in the way of CO2 emissions? And that they should develop
advanced technology for energy efficiency and low emissions energy
production rather than the US, because that will not lead to a tilt of
the global economy in their direction? And you think that the current
hemmorhage of jobs to the third world isn't based on the salary
differential?
> >
> >>>Yet, it works out somehow, and I doubt that it would do so were I not
> >>>to take that first step. What's the alternative plan? Tell the third
> >>>world that they need to keep their living standard the way it is
> >>>unless they can figure out how to improve it without CO2 emissions, so
> >>>that we can maintain our standard of living with our vast CO2
> >>>emissions?
> >>
> >>Maybe we should actually determine the real solution before we take
> >>such drastic steps.
> >
> >Since the problem is CO2 emission, the solution is obvious.
>
> Again, that's not been proven, only demonstrated in small models.
> When you know what caused past ice ages, and the subsequent warming,
> let the rest of us know how that applies to the current situation.
In other words, since that's physically, philosophically, and
conceptually impossible, just do nothing. Do you extend this
philosophy to other spheres of knowledge? We shouldn't act to counter
an epidemic when we have a good idea of what causes it, but just do
nothing until we get 'proof'.
It's not sufficient for the critics to just say 'not proved enough for
me' again and again. The way science works is to establish a priori
what level of evidence you would consider convincing, then do the
tests and see if you can achieve that level of certainty or not. So,
what level of evidence would you consider to be 'proof' of manmade
global warming? Does it involve travelling back in time to take
precise measurements of temperature, CO2, or other physical
parameters? Does it require a secondary earth to be constructed,
identical to this one in all factors except CO2 production so that a
controlled test can be carried out? If so, just say 'Nothing you can
possibly say or do will convince me' and save us all a lot of trouble.
If you do have in mind some sort of evidence which is actually
possible to gather, please let us know.
> >
> >>>And when they decline to take that advice, just shrug our
> >>>shoulders and say, 'Well hell, we tried, but they won't cooperate'?
> >>
> >>Again, we could actually find the solution rather than base one on the
> >>idea that we are "bad".
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
> >>>> with some workable answers.
> >>>
> >>>Facts? Like what, two tablets coming down from heaven with a
> >>>mathematical model of climate inscribed on them, and God's handwritten
> >>>guarantee? Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are producing CO2
> >>>at an unprecedented rate. Fact: the climate is heating up at a
> >>>similarly unprecedented rate. Fact: the best fitting and best
> >>>supported models show the major agent of the rising temperature to be
> >>>the CO2 release. Fact: there isn't enough wiggle room in the models to
> >>>eliminate the actions of human CO2 release as a prime cause, without
> >>>postulating some big unknown never-before-identified factor. Fact: as
> >>>more and more research has piled up over the years, the anthrogenic
> >>>CO2 global warming model has not been overthrown, contrary to the
> >>>predictions of the opponents over the years; in fact, areas of
> >>>uncertainty have become clearer and clearer and estimates of model
> >>>parameters have become more precise.
> >>
> >>Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
> >
> >Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>
> And yet again, we don't.
> We *think* we know, and we can demonstrate it in a very limited lab
> scenario.
> But we still can't manage to translate that into why it's happened
> before.
We've got a damn good model that fits the past century, and pretty
good for previous times. And I haven't seen a model that ignores
manmade CO2 that fits any better, do you have one available? If not, I
am logically required to assume as a working hypothesis that the
current temperature rise is related to manmade CO2 emission. What is
your logic for saying you believe in a different model, of which you
do not know anything at all other than that it does not involve
manmade CO2? Can you demonstrate some sort of decently fitting model
that does not involve manmade CO2? You keep saying that any kind of
model you want can be created to show whatever you want, so please
support your position by showing us the 'no manmade global warming'
model you find reasonable, not to mention convincing, so that we can
compare it to the IPCC model, which I have reproduced for your
convenience on the offchance that you are unfamiliar with it: short
term <http://pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/climate.jpg> and long term
<http://pws.prserv.net/gzuckier/climate2.jpg>.
> >
> >>We do know that happened, but we don't know why.
> >>Yet, we are so amazingly arrogant as to assume that *this time*, we
> >>are the cause.
> >>
> >No, we deduce it from data and scientific principles. If I add HCl to water
> >and the pH goes down, I don't throw up my hands and say:
> >
> >1. We don't know why the pH went down.
> >2. The pH went down last year from other reasons, so we can't say why it's
> >going down now.
>
> There's a slight difference there, Lloyd.
> What's being asked for is a major change in lifestyle, not just
> wondering why water is salty.
> Since the consequences are major, it's only wise to make sure the
> action is necessary.
> You DO understand that, right?
You've got it exactly backwards. Energy efficiency is a good thing in
and of itself. Reducing waste will always benefit the economy in the
long run, the only reason it isn't implemented in all cases is those
'market inefficiencies' we hear about; for instance, homeowners who
don't now have the money to replace their incandescent bulbs with
fluorescents aren't likely to get bank loans to do so, despite the
fact that the investment cost will be recouped within a few years from
lower electric bills, although from the standpoint of pure economics
the homeowner would come out ahead financially, enough to pay enough
interest on the loan to make it financially advantageous for the bank.
Similarly, getting off the fossil fuel bandwagon is going to be
absolutely necessary in the long run, and the sooner we start to do so
the less of a shock to the economy it will be; again, the reason we
don't do so is those 'market inefficiencies' that make short-term
profits more important than long-term survival in a company's
planning.
Whereas the consequences to the economy of allowing global warming to
proceed if we can indeed do something about it will be just plain
destruction and devastation, with no investment potential and no
payback.
